Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_2130572900-scaled

EU's diplomacy-first foreign policy fades in response to Ukraine war

Unprecedented agreements to sanction Russia and send weapons to the conflict, while sitting out talks, mark a sharp departure from the bloc’s traditional approach.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

As Ukrainian and Russian Foreign Ministers met in Turkey for talks last week, the absence of European Union leaders from these diplomatic efforts to end the devastating war is startling. In the meantime, the EU is riding a celebratory wave of success after reaching unanimous consensus on a sanctions regime against Moscow — something it rarely gets in other contexts.

The unprecedented package of financial sanctions adopted by the EU alongside the United States and other Western allies — such as exclusion of seven Russian banks from the SWIFT payment system and a ban on transactions with the Russian Central Bank — was agreed with a speedy approval of the EU’s 27 governments, including Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU has put on the back burner its self-promotion as a global actor prioritizing diplomatic action and a values-based foreign policy as approaches to peace. Instead, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire boasted about unleashing an economic and financial war on Russia aiming for the collapse of the Russian economy.

While the EU together with the United States are entangled in the clash for spheres of influence in the post-Soviet space with Russia, it is the people that bear the costs of the ensuing wars — against the backdrop of unimpeded political interests of elites in power. Inevitably, this is a global step backwards in people-centered politics and a boost for illiberal regional alliances free to disregard international law.

This is not surprising. The restrictive measures imposed on Russia are appealing as they are a relatively easy crisis management approach (especially considering the EU’s weak foreign policy architecture) and an obvious choice given the desire to avoid Western boots on the ground, particularly in a context of emerging nuclear tensions.

But instead of putting any collective political weight into supporting a ceasefire and negotiations to accompany these sanctions — like the French-led effort in 2008 after Russia’s invasion of Georgia — the EU has exchanged diplomacy for militarization. On the day Ukraine and Russia agreed to hold talks in Belarus after the invasion, the EU announced it would send €450 million worth of lethal weapons to Ukraine — the first time the bloc has supplied arms to a country at war. A day earlier, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany will also be sending weapons to Ukraine, marking a historic departure from its long-standing policy banning lethal weapons shipments to conflict zones.

The situation is undoubtedly difficult with no clear way out, and pressure is mounting with the numbers of refugees fleeing Ukraine while the country’s civilians turn into an army to defend their families from the horrors of Putin’s “special operation.” But in choosing a panic-and-do-something approach, the EU is legitimizing selective economic warfare with little appreciation for skilled diplomacy, while blatantly ignoring any useful lessons from the past as to the success of sanctions.

Coupled with double standards in choosing targets for restrictive measures based on political interests, what emerges is another blow to an already struggling multilateral system, where both international law and responses for its violations become an acceptable a la carte menu for those who can afford it.

The winners of such pathways will likely be illiberal alliances drafting their own rules if there is no equal global playing field. Regional cooperation is a favorable choice for governments who can be the next target of restrictive measures by Western allies. It is not surprising that India and China have been looking at alternative financial systems to work around them. The sanctions package that reproduces historically familiar patterns of attempted regime change through economic warfare is only likely to make things worse.

Going forward, to think more seriously about diplomacy, the EU could consider that some of Putin’s aims in Ukraine could have been to a large degree achieved already — creating a protracted conflict and destabilization to close off a path for Ukraine to NATO membership. Because all efforts at stopping the war and its atrocities through sanctions must include a sound assessment of the other party’s aims coupled with a comprehensive analysis of desired and achievable impacts. Simply consolidating the acceptance of selective use of sanctions while dismissing serious diplomacy is going to have grave consequences for peoples’ lives, and, more broadly, for multilateralism.


EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell speaks to the press at the end of an informal video conference of EU foreign affairs ministers at the European Council in Brussels, Belgium on Feb. 28 2022. (Editorial credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com)
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war
Shutterstock/Ben Von Klemperer

Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war

QiOSK

The intra-GOP debate over the Iran war has now reached inside the Trump administration, triggering the first senior-level resignation over the conflict.

Joe Kent, a former U.S. Army officer, resigned Tuesday from his position as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), saying in a letter that he could no longer “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.” Kent focused his blame on “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for leading President Donald Trump down this dangerous path and deceiving him into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat and that a war could be won quickly and easily.

keep readingShow less
Iran Us airstrikes
Top photo credit: An Iranian couple carries a national flag as they walk past a police facility that is destroyed in an attack during a rally commemorating International Quds Day, also known as Jerusalem Day, in Tehran, Iran, on March 13, 2026, amid the U.S.-Israeli military campaign. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)
Trump's capture of Maduro and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Trump's ill-fated attempt to copy Israel's 'mowing the grass' strategy

Global Crises

Two weeks into the Iran War, the Trump Administration remains mired in a conflict without a clear casus belli and without an articulated end state. President Donald Trump’s latest extra-constitutional use of military force is but the latest in an alarming trend: the Trump administration believes it has solved the “forever war” trap by attempting to divorce war from discrete political objectives.

Trump and his allies appear to have decided that, by blowing things up without a clear political end state in mind, they can advance U.S. geopolitical interests while avoiding a quagmire. In practice, this is little more than a global version of Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy, in which periodic military campaigns substitute for political strategy. Now, this notion of war without politics is dragging the U.S. even deeper into the messy business of Middle Eastern affairs.

keep readingShow less
‘Water War’ rages as India-Pakistan tensions reach boiling point
Top image credit: A view of Ranjit Sagar Dam (Thein Dam), which is near the proposed site of the Shahpur Kandi Dam. (Shutterstock/mrinalpal)

A view of Ranjit Sagar Dam (Thein Dam), which is near the proposed site of the Shahpur Kandi Dam. (Shutterstock/mrinalpal)

‘Water War’ rages as India-Pakistan tensions reach boiling point

Global Crises

Last week, water became a focal point in the Iran war, as airstrikes hit desalination plants in Iran and Bahrain. Further east, a slower motion water war was playing out — one that is heightening tensions between two nuclear armed powers.

The Shahpur Kandi Dam project was first conceptualized in the late 1970s. In 1982, former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi laid its foundation stone and set a 1988 deadline for the project. But inter-state conflicts between Punjab, Jammu, and Kashmir stalled construction for decades.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.